Home/Learn/Impermanent Loss: The Hidden Cost of Providing Liquidity
Back to Learning Hub

Impermanent Loss: The Hidden Cost of Providing Liquidity

Learn why liquidity providers can lose value versus holding tokens, even when they earn trading fees.

Reviewed by Pavlo Nakonechnyi
Updated 2026-05-11

Impermanent loss is the difference between holding two assets and depositing them into an automated market maker liquidity pool.

Why It Happens

When token prices move, the pool automatically rebalances. Liquidity providers end up holding more of the weaker asset and less of the stronger asset.

Why Fees Matter

Trading fees can offset impermanent loss, but only if volume is real and sustained. A high advertised APR can still lose money if token prices move sharply or rewards are paid in an inflating token.

A Simple Way To Think About It

Liquidity providers sell a little of the asset that rises and buy a little of the asset that falls because the pool must keep its ratio balanced. That automatic rebalancing is useful for traders but can hurt providers when prices diverge.

Pool type Typical IL risk
Stablecoin pair Lower, assuming both assets keep their peg.
Blue-chip volatile pair Moderate, depending on volatility and fee income.
New token pair High, especially if one asset trends strongly.
Concentrated liquidity position Can be higher if price leaves the chosen range.

When Fees Can Help

Fees are the compensation for taking liquidity risk. A pool with high real volume and moderate volatility can outperform holding. A pool with low volume, high volatility, or incentive-token APR can underperform even when the dashboard shows attractive yield.

How TokenRadar Applies This

TokenRadar reads liquidity incentives with market quality. High yield is less attractive if rewards are inflationary, pool depth is thin, or one side of the pair has weak demand. The best liquidity programs usually have transparent fee generation and realistic reward schedules.

Practical Rule

Before depositing, compare the expected fee income with a realistic price-movement scenario. If you would be unhappy owning more of the weaker asset after a drawdown, the pool is probably not a good fit.